Did EPO use really kill some riders?

[Granville57]

Who exactly are they afraid of?

OK, now you're quoting me.

Is this a vortex?

 

[Parker]

OK, now you're quoting me.

Is this a vortex?

No vortex. As you say, you asked the same question? My question, though, is are they actually afraid? Or are they just reluctant to revisit a dark past?

Kimmage suggests they're afraid, in an eye catching headline, but never really says of whom. But then fear is a more compelling narrative device than a reluctance to reopen old wounds, isn't it?

 

[Granville57]

But then fear is a more compelling narrative device than a reluctance to reopen old wounds, isn't it?

Well, it's got us chatting on a Friday evening.

 

[Granville57]

Kimmage suggests they're afraid, in an eye catching headline, but never really says of whom.

I've just reviewed those installments. Kimmage does a bit more than just "suggest" they're afraid, and it's much more than just a headline. He truly believes it to be fear, and I guess it's up to us to take him at his word or not.

People are afraid. People he grew up with, people he would have regarded as brothers and friends, seem terrified by the mention of his name. Some talk off the record. Some say nothing or refuse to take a call.

That's a fairly strong assertion on Paul's part. He also acknowledges that a simple transcript of a phone call does not convey the level of fear that he sensed on the other end of the line. I, for one, can't really find any reason to doubt his sincerity in this instance.


But you are quite correct that Kimmage never does trace the source of this fear.

And five months after meeting his widow, Annalisa, and our visit to his grave, I am no closer to making sense of any of it.

 

[Parker]

I've just reviewed those installments. Kimmage does a bit more than just "suggest" they're afraid, and it's much more than just a headline. He truly believes it to be fear, and I guess it's up to us to take him at his word or not.

That's a fairly strong assertion on Paul's part. He also acknowledges that a simple transcript of a phone call does not convey the level of fear that he sensed on the other end of the line. I, for one, can't really find any reason to doubt his sincerity in this instance.

The fear is his perception. No-one has said anything like that. As you say, he 'sensed' it. He's a journalist and that's his style. It's a four episode story from over twenty years ago about someone no-one has heard of. He has to sell it to his editors and readers.

All journalists use emotional tricks and editorialise. He's no different. He's spent most of his career as writing profile pieces, where personal perceptions are the currency of choice.

 

[Digger]

The fear is his perception. No-one has said anything like that. As you say, he 'sensed' it. He's a journalist and that's his style. It's a four episode story from over twenty years ago about someone no-one has heard of. He has to sell it to his editors and readers.

All journalists use emotional tricks and editorialise. He's no different. He's spent most of his career as writing profile pieces, where personal perceptions are the currency of choice.

Just because you are a Johnny come lately to the sport, most people had heard of him.

 

[fmk_RoI]

What do you suppose is Kimmage's agenda regarding the case of Johannes Draaijer?

To make it a tale about doping, rightly or wrongly, and thereby smearing, rightly or wrongly, those who he expects to talk to him.

And the articles written, do they back that up? Or does the lack of doping in them offend Clinicians who don't want the personality stuff, just want the black-and-white he's-clean-he's-dirty stuff?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Kimmage suggests they're afraid, in an eye catching headline, but never really says of whom.

Funny you should assume it's a whom. I would have said it's a what.

 

[Parker]

Just because you are a Johnny come lately to the sport, most people had heard of him.

So he's a well known name with the general readership of the Sunday Independent, is he? The majority of them have barely heard of Sam Bennett. Most people don't follow cycling at all. Even to cycling fans rider who won two stages of the Peace Race in the 80s and died 24 years ago is not a big name. He's probably not even well known in the Netherlands.

(And I've been watching this sport since the 80s, so don't try that Johnny come lately crap).

 

[Parker]

Funny you should assume it's a whom. I would have said it's a what.

And behind every what there's usually a whom.

(This is a bit cryptic now).

 

[Digger]

So he's a well known name with the general readership of the Sunday Independent, is he? The majority of them have barely heard of Sam Bennett. Most people don't follow cycling at all. Even to cycling fans rider who won two stages of the Peace Race in the 80s and died 24 years ago is not a big name. He's probably not even well known in the Netherlands.
(And I've been watching this sport since the 80s, so don't try that Johnny come lately crap).

Source for all this?

You said nobody had heard of him...source?

 

[Parker]

Source for all this?

You said nobody had heard of him...source?

My source is common sense. Most people don't know who their local politician is, so I really don't think they have heard of minor cyclists. Particularly Dutch ones from two decades ago.
Prior to these articles if you had asked 100 random Sunday Independent readers who Johannes Draaijer was do you honestly think a single one of them would have known? Ask a 1000 and you still probably wouldn't have found one.

 

[Digger]

My source is common sense. Most people don't know who their local politician is, so I really don't think they have heard of minor cyclists. Particularly Dutch ones from two decades ago.
Prior to these articles if you had asked 100 random Sunday Independent readers who Johannes Draaijer was do you honestly think a single one of them would have known? Ask a 1000 and you still probably wouldn't have found one.

Source?????????

 

[Parker]

Source?????????

Again the source is common sense. Why the hell would the general Irish public have heard of an obscure Dutch cyclist fro 25 years ago?
Where's your source that anyone has a clue who he is?

I also don't need a source to know that most people don't understand string theory, can't name the President of Zamiba and don't the latin name for a giant panda. It's bleeding obvious. They are all obscure things to the average person.

 

[Benotti69]

The fear is his perception. No-one has said anything like that. As you say, he 'sensed' it. He's a journalist and that's his style. It's a four episode story from over twenty years ago about someone no-one has heard of. He has to sell it to his editors and readers.

All journalists use emotional tricks and editorialise. He's no different. He's spent most of his career as writing profile pieces, where personal perceptions are the currency of choice.

Your cynicism towards Kimmage a journalist and newspapers is fine, but yet you cannot extend that cynicism towards a professional cycling team, Sky, who are constantly found wanting in their explanations of how they achieve their success in a sport know to be extremely rampant with PED use.

Hypocrisy is the word that springs to my mind.

Kimmage is a multiple award winning writer. I think his trick is his honesty.

 

[Digger]

Again the source is common sense. Why the hell would the general Irish public have heard of an obscure Dutch cyclist fro 25 years ago?
Where's your source that anyone has a clue who he is?

I also don't need a source to know that most people don't understand string theory, can't name the President of Zamiba and don't the latin name for a giant panda. It's bleeding obvious. They are all obscure things to the average person.

Is it??????????

 

[Parker]

Your cynicism towards Kimmage a journalist and newspapers is fine, but yet you cannot extend that cynicism towards a professional cycling team, Sky, who are constantly found wanting in their explanations of how they achieve their success in a sport know to be extremely rampant with PED use.

Hypocrisy is the word that springs to my mind.

It's not cynicism. Every journalist has to have an angle otherwise they would just write a list of established facts. They're in the business of selling papers.

And I view Kimmage and journalism differently to Sky because - surprise, surprise - they are entirely different entities.

 

[Benotti69]

It's not cynicism. Every journalist has to have an angle otherwise they would just write a list of established facts. They're in the business of selling papers.

No. Kimmage is in the business of writing. The owners and editors are in the business of pushing circulation.

And I view Kimmage and journalism differently to Sky because - surprise, surprise - they are entirely different entities.

Amazing then how you can apply a cynical eye to Kimmage, when he rights facts and honestly, a good angle to take, but take what Sky tell you with lots of sugar.

Kimmage is an honest journalist. Sky are a doping team. Hmm yes you are correct two very different entities.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Warming this thread up...

Buried in an interveiw with Pat McQuaid, he clearly states riders were dying from EPO, then the chat show host backtracks him a bit to limit the controversy.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucan ... id=1847682

At about the 26:30 minutes into the audio. Start at 26:00 and you'll hit it.

This was all pre-Internet, so, and again fits with my recollections. Pat would definitely have been high enough inside the UCI to see/know what was going on.

The interview itself is discussed elsewhere.

 

[blackcat]

Warming this thread up...

Buried in an interveiw with Pat McQuaid, he clearly states riders were dying from EPO, then the chat show host backtracks him a bit to limit the controversy.

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucan ... id=1847682

At about the 26:30 minutes into the audio. Start at 26:00 and you'll hit it.

This was all pre-Internet, so, and again fits with my recollections. Pat would definitely have been high enough inside the UCI to see/know what was going on.

The interview itself is discussed elsewhere.

nah, actually, the period we are talking about, Pat would have been a teacher back in Ireland. He was the voted member by Ireland to the board of the UCI, from which he became President, 15yrs later.

 

[MagnificentMerckx]

Re:

What incentive did the UCI have, then, to establish a 50% hematocrit rule if it did not feel EPO was behind the death of those cyclists in the late 80's early 90's?

I have always felt that the 50% hematocrit rule was one of the most corrupt, unethical and dangerous rules ever introduced in the history of any sport. The UCI knew that most if not all cyclists were using blood boosting methods to enhance their performance. They did not, as we all know, have at the time that the rule was introduced a scientific method of detecting synthetic EPO. They knew that the average hematocrit levels for men were approximately 45% and 40% for women. So what the UCI did in essence was to give a green light for althetes to dope with blood boosting methods. What sort of message does this send out about a World Sporting Governing Body. It sends out a message that the UCI did not do everything that they could have possibly done to prevent doping. This all changed of course with the introduction of the biological passport in 2008, which was more than a decade too late. A test for EPO was introduced in 2000. This was a great concern for cyclists so they turned to blood boosting by transfusing their own blood which could not be detected. So the athlete could still boost their hematocrit level to 50% via this means. Instead of introducing the unethical 50% hematocrit rule, they could have and should have introduced a system to monitor the natural hematocrit levels of the cyclist.

 

[hrotha]

That's hogwash. The alternative was the free for all that resulted in hematocrits in the 60% range. Regardless of the UCI's will or lack thereof to fight doping, that was the best that could be done with the means available at the time.

 

[MagnificentMerckx]

Re:

That's hogwash. The alternative was the free for all that resulted in hematocrits in the 60% range. Regardless of the UCI's will or lack thereof to fight doping, that was the best that could be done with the means available at the time.

No, that is all that the UCI were willing to do at the time, unfortunately. There could have been without question more done, in my opinion.

 

[hrotha]

Such as?

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

Such as?

I don't think UCI could have done any more. In retrospect, the 50% rule made the playing field less level, it favored riders with naturally low HTs. What would have been better is a rule limiting every rider to a certain % increase over his natural HT. But that is basically what the biopassport does, and it requires some fairly sophisticated algorithms to generate a baseline and track significant deviations from the baseline. You have to know what a rider's natural HT is, as well as how much fluctuations may occur naturally over time, and that takes a long period of monitoring,during which one has to take it on faith that the rider is clean. In fact, if a biopassport system had been tried in the late 90s, it probably would have been a joke, because riders would have established their baselines while on EPO.